SHRI A.C. AGGARWAL, SUB-DIVISIONAL MAGISTRATE, DELHI & ANR. versus MST. RAM KALI, ETC.

Citation: [1968] 1 S.C.R. 205 · Decided: 16-08-1967 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: K.N. WANCHOO · Disposal: Dismissed

Cited by 4 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

205 
A SBRI A. C. AGGARWAL, SUB-DIVISIONAL MAGISTRATE, 
DELID &ANR. 
B 
v. 
MST. RAM KALI, ETC. 
August 16, 1967 
[K. N. 
WANCHOO, C. J., R. S. 
BACHAWAT, V. 
G. K. MITTER AND K. S. HEGDE, JJ.) 
RAMASWAMI, 
Suppression of Immoral Traffic in Women and Girls Act (104 of 
1956), s. 18(1)-If violative of Art. 14 of the Constituti';"'-Dllltli of 
Magistrate when cognizable offence under ss. 3 or 7 disclosed. 
Section 18 of the Suppression o! Immoral Traffic in Women and 
C Girls Act, 1956, provides for two classes of cases namely, (1) those 
coming under ss. 3 or 7 as well as under s. 18, and (2) those coming 
only under s. 18. Sections 3 and 7 provide for the punishment of per· 
sons guilty of the offences men~iOIIled therein after a regular trial, 
with a right of appeal. Section 18 ls a preventive measure, dealing 
with premises, and is intended to minimise the chance of a brothel 
being run near a public place, and provides for a summary enquiry. 
D r2n !).E; G-Hl-
In the present case, on the strength of reports submitted by the 
police to him, the Sub-Divisional Magistrate passed orders under s. 18 
(1) with respect to certain premises in the occupation of the reSPOIII· 
dents. They challenged the validity of the section, and the High 
CQUrt held that the section violated Art. 14 of the Constitution. 
In appeal to this Court, 
E 
Held: Section 18 provides for two distinct ci""8es of cases and 
the classifica1zibn being reasonable is not violative of Art. 14 of the 
Constitution. But the proceedings taken by the Magistrate not being 
in accordanee with Jaw should be set aside. The reports disclosed a 
cognizable offence under s. 3 of the Act and in such a case the l\(ql&. 
Irate cannot ignore the cognizable offence and merely have recourse 
to s. 18, thus dep~iving parties of the benefit Qf a trial and appeal 
F The Magistrate should have taken action under s. 190(11 (b) of the 
Criminal Procedure Code after investigation by such police ol'llcer as 
is mentioned in s. 13 of the Act, and It was only after the disposal of 
the cases agai119\ the parties that action could be taken under s. 18 if 
there was occasion for it. (212 A-D]. 
G 
B 
S_tate of ~est ;Bengal v. Anwa" Ali Sarkar, r19521 S.C.R. 284 and 
Delhi Administration v. Ram Singh. (1962] 2 S.C.R. 6"94, referred to. 
~AL 
APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeals No 
76--:82 of 1965. 
· 
Appeals from the judgment and order dated September 9 
1963 of the Punjab High Court, Circuit Bench at Delhi in Crimi'. 
nal Writs Nos. 3-D, 4-D, 5-D, 6-D, 7-D, 10-D and 12-D of 1962. 
B. R. L. Iyengar and R. N. Sachthey, for the appellants (in 
all the appeals). 
G. S. Bawa and Harbans Singh, for the respondents (in Cr. 
As. Nos. 76--:Sl of 1965). 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[1968] I S.fl.R. 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
Hegde, J.-These are companion appeals. They were brought 
to this Court on the strength of the certificates issued by the High 
Court of Punjab. The only question that falls for decision in these 
appeals is whether s.18 of the Suppression of Immoral Traffic in 
Women and Girls Act, 1956 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) is 
ultra vires Art. 14 of the Constitution. The attack on the validity 8 
of that section on the basis of Art.I ~(d), (e) and (f) was not pressed 
at the time of the hearing. Hence there is no need to examine the 
said plea. 
The first appellant in these appeals, Shri A. C. Aggarwal, 
Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Delhi, issued notices to the respon-
dents in these appeals-except that in criminal appeal No. 82 of C 
1965-to show cause why the premises occupied by them should 
not be attached uuder s.18(1) of the Act. Those notices were issued 
on the basis of police reports that those premises were being used 
as brothels. In reply amongst other pleas those respondents 
challenged the validity of s.18. They moved the learned magistrate 
to refer the question as to the validity of s.18 to the High Court D 
under s.432 of the Criminal Procedure Code of 1898. As the learn-
ed magistrate rejected that prayer, they moved the High Court 
under Art. 226 of the Constitution in criminal writs Nos. 3D to 
7D and lOD of 1962, challenging the vires of s.18. Respondent in 
criminal appeal No. 82 of 1962 claims to be the tenant in fiat No. 
54 on the first floor of Japan Building, which premises had been 
attached in the proceedings against one Mst. Ambar under s.18(1). E 
His case was that he had permitted the said Mst. Ambar to use 
those premis

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.